Education Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Education Bill [Lords]

New Clause 4 - Complaints procedures

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interests of the complainant; or
(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Eric Forth: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 7—Complaints procedures (Wales)—
‘(1)The Assembly shall make regulations establishing procedures whereby persons who may be prescribed by such regulations under this Chapter as having an interest in an inspection shall have the right of complaint to an independent adjudicator appointed for the purpose that—
(a)the inspection has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act or with regulations made under this Act;
(b)a member of an inspection team has in carrying out an inspection behaved in a manner which may be considered unreasonably prejudicial to the interest of the complainant; or
(c)the inspection report of an inspection contains material prejudicial to the interests of the complainant which cannot be considered justifiable by reference to the evidence available in the course of conducting the inspection.
(2)Upon receipt of the findings of an independent adjudicator made in accordance with the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the Chief Inspector shall take such action consistent with such findings as appears to him to be necessary in order to satisfy any  complaint found to be justifiable including without limitation the modification of any report published under section 11 and the re-publication of such report with such modifications.’.

Don Touhig: When we adjourned, I had just said a few words about what I saw as the intention behind the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), which seek to create a procedure for complaints to the independent adjudicator. There is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted, who was appointed by the Secretary of State. Before I speak about her role, it is worth saying a word about the context of complaints about school inspections in England. Because of the other changes that we seek to make in the Bill, the responsibility for school inspections will, in future, be firmly with Ofsted and complaints about inspections will have to be dealt with in that new context.
Ofsted has already developed, and is currently consulting on, a new complaints procedure for inspections, which will take particular account of the planned arrangements. The new procedure will set out clearly how schools will be able to discuss any concerns about an inspection with Ofsted, as well as to complain more formally. It will be explicit that a complaint may be about the inspection, the report, including judgments, or the conduct of the inspector.
The hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Upminster expressed some concerns this morning about the reaction that teachers get when they have a problem with inspectors. The hon. Gentleman gave an example from his own experience. Ofsted will soon publish a code of conduct for inspectors. A similar code of conduct already exits and is published in Wales. In future, Ofsted will be able to address concerns directly at all stages of the process and amend reports when a complaint is upheld.
The independent complaints adjudicator is in place and is completely independent of Ofsted. The adjudicator can consider complaints about any of the issues covered in subsection (1)(a) to (c) of the proposed new clause tabled by the hon. Lady, provided that the person complaining has exhausted Ofsted’s own complaints procedure. It must be right that an organisation has proper opportunities to see whether it needs to take action in response to a complaint before that complaint is referred to a third party. Unlike Ofsted, the adjudicator is not able to overturn professional judgments, but she is able to make recommendations if she considers that there is no evidence for a judgment or if the report does not adequately explain the link between the evidence and the finding. The adjudicator can recommend that the chief inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decisions, he must make a public statement giving his reasons.
The only thing proposed in the new clause that cannot happen now is that the chief inspector is not able, without limitation, to modify and republish inspection reports. Under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996, they are not his reports; they are those of the registered inspectors. However, we seek to  change that through the Bill, which will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspection reports in England with the chief inspector.
I believe that the remit of the complaints adjudicator is right. She is already appointed by the Secretary of State so there is no need for the appointment to be statutory. Robust procedures are in place for schools to be able to ensure that inaccuracies are corrected, to challenge judgments when they think that they are unfair and to seek independent adjudication when they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. As the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southport demonstrate, there are difficulties. I am sure that we all know of cases where there have been tensions when inspectors have gone into schools and there have been disagreements, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, about the way in which a subject has been taught. We recognise those tensions and the pressures put on all teachers as a consequence.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the independent adjudicator and Ofsted? If the independent adjudicator decided that the original inspection report was incorrect or in need of amending, whose decision would have authority when it came to whether that amendment was made? Would it be the independent adjudicator or Ofsted?

Don Touhig: The independent adjudicator would not be able to overturn professional judgments in the report, but she can recommend that an inspector reconsider a complaint in the light of her comments. If he rejects her decision, he must then make a public statement to say why he has done so.
New clause 7 would put a duty on the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations setting out a procedure for complaining to an independent adjudicator. The adjudicator would be required to consider complaints lodged against the conduct of a school inspection and the conclusions set out in the inspection report. That could include complaints that an inspection had been conducted in a manner inconsistent with legal requirements.
As I understand the hon. Lady’s intention, the adjudicator could also consider a complaint that the evidence gathered during the inspection did not support the conclusions of an inspection report. In such circumstances, the chief inspector would be required to act in accordance with the findings of the adjudicator, and that would include revising and republishing the inspection report when required.
It is right that there should be clear and readily available avenues of redress for those who wish to lodge complaints about professional judgments and opinions expressed in an inspection report and about the extent to which the inspection was conducted in a manner consistent with the accepted processes and procedures. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that Estyn—Her Majesty’s inspectorate for education and training in Wales—already has detailed and transparent procedures for handling such complaints.
The position in Wales is that, under the common inspection framework, a school nominee will be attached to each inspection team and will be able to bring additional evidence to the team at any point during the process. That person will be aware of the emerging judgments and will therefore be well placed to challenge the findings and to present additional information or evidence to the inspectorate team.
On the production of reports, regulations already provide for reports to be completed within 35 working days. Estyn’s guidance requires that, within that period, the registered inspector give the school a late draft of the report to help with the checking of factual content. The school then has five working days in which to consider the draft, and the inspector has to take account of comments offered and to correct factual errors. The main purpose of that process is to enable the correction of factual inaccuracies, but it presents the school with an opportunity to raise issues about which it feels strongly. Beyond that, any complaint about the professional judgments that are made in the course of the school inspection will be considered initially by the lead inspector. If complainants are not satisfied with the response, they may ask for the complaint to be considered by a senior HMI or the chief inspector.
On the processes and procedures followed during an inspection, it is also right that schools should have access to further independent avenues of redress. Again, such provision is already made. Those who are dissatisfied with the conduct of an inspection or with the way in which Estyn has managed their complaint can approach the Welsh administration ombudsman, who is empowered to investigate complaints of injustice due to maladministration by Welsh public bodies, including Estyn. Maladministration includes poor administration resulting from the failure to follow correct procedures, as well as unfairness, bias or prejudice, and giving misleading or inadequate evidence. The ombudsman has powers to investigate complaints about the administrative actions taken by Estyn or those acting for the inspectorate. If a complaint were justified in the opinion of the ombudsman, the inspectorate would be required, within a set period, to take action to meet any recommendation set out by the ombudsman.
Therefore, there are already accepted and readily accessible procedures for challenging the professional judgment registered in an inspection report and the manner in which the inspection was conducted, and they include recourse to independent adjudication. With those remarks, I hope that the hon. Lady will better understand the intention behind what the Government seek to do and why we are resisting the new clauses that she has tabled.

Angela Watkinson: I am reassured in part by the Minister’s comments, but I foresee certain circumstances in which there is a dispute about the justification for the results of an inspection and a difference of opinion, because the independent adjudicator has upheld the views of the school but Ofsted has decided that it was right. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofsted will make a statement about its  reasons for not wanting to change its views on the report, that appears to be the end of the line, and the school will be saddled with an Ofsted report that it believes to be unjustified. If I understand the Minister correctly, there is no further recourse beyond that point.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Lady’s point. She will recall that I went on to say that we are seeking to make changes to the School Inspections Act 1996 so that provisions in the Bill will place the responsibility for the publication of all inspectors’ reports on the chief inspector. The chief inspector will therefore be ultimately responsible for the publication of all reports.
I did say that the chief inspector would then be required to make a statement if he rejected the independent adjudicator’s comments in upholding a complaint. I have no doubt in those circumstances that hon. and right hon. Members will seek opportunities in this place to take the matter further in Adjournment debates and by other measures. We cannot, and should not, go further at this stage. This is an important way of making progress on the issue of complaints. The process is open and transparent, which is important. The requirement on the chief inspector to make a public statement of the reasons why he would reject an independent adjudicator’s complaints is very important.

Angela Watkinson: In view of those comments, which go some way to reassuring me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 101 - Funding of maintained schools

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: I received a very pleasant letter from the Minister the other day, which clarified my understanding of the clause and its implications. Again, it is a short clause—it has only two lines—but behind it hides a schedule and a wealth of detail and consideration that are not even in the legislation but are probably worth airing in part.
With your leave, Mr. Forth, I shall indulge myself, if not the Committee, and if I can test my understanding of the clause, I will be mightily reassured. As I understand them, the schedule and its proposed new subsections change the date at which schools know their budget, and give their budget a three-year predictability.
I am trying to get to grips with the consequential effects on the structure of the school budget and the local authority budget. In recent history, formula funding shares were agreed for education, an element of which eventually becomes the aggregated schools  budget, and the local education authority keeps an element for its statutory functions, which the Government want it to carry out.
Other money is taken back from the LEA, subject to an overall ceiling of how much the LEA can spend in total, relative to the school budget for various services that the LEAs will provide in different parts of the country. The money is extracted from the schools budget. From time to time, the LEAs also lay out a third level of services, and schools are freed from their devolved budgets to buy into them. As I said, this is all subject to an overall limit on what LEA spend should be compared with the total sum.
The new arrangement, if I have come to terms with it, is that schools will have a designated budget for three years. I assume that every local authority settlement will contain a different specific sum that is reserved for necessary local authority functions as defined by the Secretary of State.
Money from the designated school budget may still come back to the local authority so that it can perform various functions, subject to the approval of the school forum. I said in the Chamber that that put an extra lock into the process and was an extra obstacle against local authorities carrying out their strategic functions. To my eternal discredit, I was wrong.
I understand now that that is not the case. Whereas such an agreement would formerly have needed to be ratified by the Secretary of State, he is now not necessarily involved. The forum can agree it on site with the LEA, and the schools can agree on how to administer certain strategic functions for the local authority under the designated school budget. I think that I am correct in saying that even if there is no agreement between the forum and the local authority, and the local authority cannot carry out what it sees as a major strategic purpose, it may subsequently apply to the Secretary of State, who will then use the judgment of Solomon. That is not quite as reprehensible a state of affairs as I said it was a week or so ago. I apologise to the Secretary of State for not getting it right first time.
None the less, I wish to make a few comments on the arrangements. The forums will clearly play a crucial role. The forum is a relatively new beast, and many local authorities and many in the teaching profession probably do not appreciate how important it is likely to become. I wonder whether any thought has been given to the exact structure of the forums or to whether the issues are better left to the discretion of local authorities and schools.
I shall try to crystallise that point by referring to a case from my neck of the woods, where the school formula was changed with the agreement of the forum, but in a way that had particular disadvantages for infant-only schools, which were sorely aggrieved. When the issue was looked into, it was discovered that there was no infant representation on the forum. School forums with functions in that particular format will obviously have problems, and that will lead to a good number of appeals being made over their heads  to the Secretary of State. The question is whether we are satisfied that forums are good enough for the task in hand.
Other issues raised by the local authorities are also important. In one sense, the designated school budget is money being parcelled up by the Government and sent to specific schools. I presume that it will be pitched at a level that is judged to be nationally appropriate, and that it will therefore to some extent override pre-existing formulas. As we know, some local authorities are more generous to their schools than others. The general fear is that we may be moving towards the national funding of schools and that, subject to certain criteria, every school will get the same type of deal.
Schools in impoverished areas will obviously get a different deal from those in suburban and relatively rich areas, but it seems that a national prescription will nevertheless apply. I cannot see how that will be accomplished under the Bill, however, because it is obvious that when schools receive their designated school budget they may get a further exhibition of largesse from the local authority. Nothing in the Bill will stop them saying, “This is what the Government have given by way of designated budget, but we normally give you a lot more. Here, have the additional money.” That will necessarily lead to problems for local authorities that, even though they are not funded to do so, currently fund their schools at a higher level. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the question whether all schools will have the same formula. Is that the destination or at least the likely outcome?
We have all received a good amount of lobbying from the Local Government Association, which seems to have objected in principle to the three-year deal. I apologise if I have not understood it correctly, but the line seems to be that if the money is set aside for the schools for three years or three years ahead, it circumscribes and limits local decision making, local strategic manoeuvres and so on. I am a little unconvinced by that argument, as many local authorities wish to move or are moving to three-year budgets. They are budgeting in a fairly formal way on a three-year cycle.
I remember long before I was in this place—longer ago than I care to remember—speaking about budgets to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) when we were on the same council. We went through the ordeal of a council budget every year, which meant a lot of burning of the midnight oil. I said to him across the chamber that what we really wanted was three-year budgets. That must have been 15 or more years ago. He took me aside and, speaking very kindly, said that that sad illusion would never be fulfilled. We are near to fulfilling it, and I do not think that the LGA should have any reason for opposing that. Obviously, the Minister may wish to comment on its representation.

Stephen Twigg: Let me first address the last of the three sets of comments made by the hon. Member for Southport. It is fair to say that the LGA has expressed several concerns about the ring-fencing arrangements that we have put in place, but I believe that they are a sensible  approach to giving schools the stability that they have rightly been asking for and to assisting them in planning for the future.
It is true that there is both an upside and a downside to three-year budgeting. We discussed in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago the trade-off between certainty and flexibility to meet the changing needs of a changing school population. That is one of the issues on which the Government are consulting at present. We welcome comments from colleagues of all parties, although the consultation is principally with schools and local governments. The hon. Gentleman answered his third point himself, in that we can give reassurance. The general trend of policy is indeed towards three-year budgets, which are advantageous to local government as well as to schools.
The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about the schools forums. The position that he described was accurate and correct—in a sense, he corrected the comments that he made on Second Reading—so I do not need to repeat it. He raised a perfectly reasonable point by asking, in the light of the role that schools forums were taking on, whether we needed to consider how they operated their constitution, voting procedures and so on. At this stage, the best thing for me to say is that we will consider whether any changes are required to the regulations dealing with the constitution and procedures of schools forums. We shall have to take the opportunity to have discuss those matters if revisions are needed in the light of the new decision-making powers. My Department’s preference would be to build on what we view, by and large, as very good practice in schools forums and to issue guidance that we hope will be widely adopted. In doing that, it is clear that we will need to take into account the kind of circumstance that he described from his constituency experience.
Finally, let me address the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the measure is, in essence, a move to a national funding formula. It is worth while to emphasise that, although we are creating a dedicated schools budget and saying to local governments that they must spend the funds on their schools, we are also continuing with the LEA’s important role in schools funding. There will still be a local formula for distributing funds locally.
In recent changes to schools funding, we established the principle of having a core amount of money that any pupil in any part of the country would get, and then top-ups for factors such as deprivation, rural sparsity and so on. Clearly, we continue to debate in this House and elsewhere whether the mix between those two aspects is right, but even with the ring-fenced, dedicated schools budget, at the local level, the authority will still decide in conjunction with its schools on a local formula for distributing the money.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister will know that there is significant variation at present in the amount passed to schools by their LEAs. My authority in the London borough of Havering is extremely good. It is an extremely lean and efficient organisation at the centre, and it passports the absolute maximum to its  schools. Sadly, that is not the case in some authorities elsewhere in the country. There are significant variations. It would be much better if school funding were passed directly from the Secretary of State to individual schools rather than channelled through LEAs, so that head teachers and governors had total control over their own budgets and could plan much more effectively.

Stephen Twigg: There would be advantages to that alternative, but there would also be disadvantages. We certainly considered the option of a national formula when we were deciding how to take forward school funding. In the end, we decided to adopt one aspect: the guarantee to get money to schools. That is what the legislation does through the dedicated schools grant, but there is still local flexibility to meet particular local circumstances. I am not convinced that central Government are best placed to decide the budget of each and every school in the country. We can decide how much goes to each local area, but the decision about distributing that money within the local area is best taken locally.

Angela Watkinson: The method by which funding would be passed directly from Government to individual schools would need certain elements, such as a per-pupil element and elements to reflect local circumstances, such as areas of deprivation, large numbers of children without English as a first language and unusually high numbers of children with special needs. All sorts of elements would have to be taken into consideration, but it would still be possible to fund directly in that way.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Lady is right that one could construct a formula, but it would inevitably be less flexible than allowing an element of local decision making. People often talk to me about mobility—pupils moving in and out of an area. Some schools have very high mobility, for many different reasons, and others have much lower levels.
Our national formula has no element at all to cover that issue, but the formula of some local authorities will have a local element for it. There is sense in saying that some areas exhibit much higher levels of pupil mobility than others and that those matters should be decided locally. We can, of course, consider adding that element to the national formula, but I am not convinced that we can get every little bit right in the national formula to meet the needs of more than 20,000 schools throughout the country. I am sure that that debate will continue.
I believe that I have dealt with all the points made by the hon. Member for Southport, but I shall happily respond to them again if he wants to return to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103 - Removal of requirements for governors’ reports and parents’ meetings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Annual parents’ meeting—
‘(1)It shall be left to the discretion of the governing body of each maintained school in England and Wales to decide whether or not to hold an annual parents’ meeting.
(2)The governing body and headteacher shall decide on the nature, length and style of any meeting which is to be held.’.

Angela Watkinson: I rise to speak to new clause 14, which relates to the annual meeting of the governing body and parents, to be held at their discretion.
In the interests of parental involvement and continued contact between teachers, governing bodies, parents and schools, the facility should be available to them to hold an annual parents’ and governors’ meeting if they want to do so. As governors, we have all been to annual meetings at which the teachers and governors have outnumbered the parents—very often, they do so by two to one. The ones who turn up are the usual suspects, but there may be circumstances in which there has been some crisis or something unusual has happened at the school. Indeed, the school might be doing exceptionally well, and the parents will want to come to the meeting.
We often take it as a compliment that parents do not come to the annual parents’ evening, and regard it as a sign that they are all very happy with what is going on in the school. If someone does have a serious complaint, they ensure that they are there. There should be an annual parents’ meeting if there is a demand for it in the circumstances, and it would be up to the school and the governors to test whether the parents wanted a parents’ evening. It is quite easy for them to test opinion to see whether there is a demand. They could decide that if x number of parents wanted to attend an annual parents’ meeting with the governors, they should be able to do so. If only individual parents wanted a meeting, they could have one on an individual basis with the head teacher or governors.
Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
“The governing body and headteacher shall decide on the nature, length and style of any meeting which is to be held.”
Clearly, that would depend on the level of demand, the reason for wanting the meeting and the likely outcomes. I feel that the facility should be available so that anyone who needed it could take advantage of it.

John Pugh: Again, I think that the new clause falls under the heading of legislating for what can happen anyway. I do not think that anything in the Education Act 2002 bans schools from engaging in these rather strange rituals that have been so horrendously unsuccessful ever since the Conservatives introduced them. I should hate to create a presumption in their favour, because local authority after local authority  has pleaded to discontinue them. They are extraordinarily wasteful of resources. I think that schools and head teachers have the capacity to hold meetings, and to decide on their nature, length, style and objectives. I remain unconvinced that new clause 14 is needed, because I cannot see that it would achieve much.

Stephen Twigg: As was reflected on Second Reading as well as in the other place, hon. Members across the House agree that parental engagement in education is critical. The only debate between us is about how best to achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman said, the governing body has the discretion to hold an annual parents’ meeting. Nothing in the Bill would prevent a school’s governing body from deciding that it wanted to maintain an annual meeting with parents.
We cannot accept the new clause for two reasons. First, it would be wrong to legislate to give a discretionary power to governing bodies when that discretion already exists. That may fetter governing bodies’ discretion in other areas. At present, governing bodies may do anything that appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the conduct of the school. To provide specific powers in certain areas such as those proposed in the new clause could lead governing bodies to question their wide powers and to make them look for explicit powers in statute before doing anything. In addition, it could be construed by the courts as narrowing those wide powers.
Secondly, there is a specific point with regard to Wales that explains why we cannot accept the new clause. Governing bodies in Wales will still be required to hold an annual parents’ meeting under clause 103. The introduction of discretion for the governing body on whether to hold annual parents’ meetings would be in direct conflict with that requirement. One cannot impose a duty and give discretion over the same matter. In the light of what I and the hon. Member for Southport have said, I ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister has said that it is open to head teachers and governors to meet parents if they desire. It is clause 103 that removes the requirement, so that such a meeting need not take place but may take place if there is demand. In the circumstances, I shall not press the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 104 to 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 108 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 - Further amendments related to provisions of part 4

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill.

Angela Watkinson: Paragraph 2(6)(b) concerns access to buildings by special needs pupils. There are funding implications; huge costs are involved. I am a governor of a mixed comprehensive school that has several students who use wheelchairs. Because the school is on two floors, we had to install a lift at great expense, and it was incorporated into the extension that was built when the school obtained special status. There need to be special circumstances if we are to overcome expensive access problems such as installing lifts. Ramps on the ground floor are less expensive and most schools can manage to have those put in. The installation of lifts is a problem for mainstream schools that have students with special needs, particularly those with mobility problems who use wheelchairs or walking aids. For a while, we had to confine our wheelchair users to ground floor lessons. That is not real inclusion. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Derek Twigg: I know that the hon. Lady is very knowledgeable in this area and has done a lot of work involving special schools and handicapped children. The clause provides for a parent or carer to be served with a penalty notice or prosecuted if his or her child fails regularly to attend—[Interruption.]

Eric Forth: May I help the Minister? The hon. Lady was talking about schedule 18, specifically paragraph 2(6)(b)(ii) and (iii).

Derek Twigg: I apologise. The best answer that I can give is to say that, when schools are built in future, we shall consider disabled access. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I shall write to her in more detail while we take the matter forward.
Angela Watkinsonindicated assent.

Derek Twigg: I thank the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clauses 118 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Functions of agency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 10—Duty of Training and Development Agency for Schools to consult other statutory bodies—
 ‘For the purpose of the exercise of their functions under section 75(2)(a) and (b), the Agency must consult the General Teaching Council in England and Wales and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.’.
New clause 16—Annual Report of Training and Development Agency for Schools to Parliament—
 ‘The Agency shall produce an annual report which shall be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution.’.

Angela Watkinson: New clause 10 says:
 “For the purpose of the exercise of their functions under section 75(2)(a) and (b), the Agency”—
that is, the newly titled Training and Development Agency for Schools—
“must consult the General Teaching Council in England and Wales and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.”
That would mean a consultation exercise to ensure that the objectives of all the bodies are held in common and the highest calibre of people exercise those powers, because their common aim is to assist the career development of not only teachers but the whole work force in schools. The work force are becoming more diverse as the functions in schools expand. The new clause is sensible, involving the General Teaching Council and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in making joint decisions after consultation about the exercise of the functions under the new power.

Colin Pickthall: I have a few queries on clause stand part, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clear up. First, on the relationship between clauses 74 and 75, it is clear in the supporting notes that clause 75(2) extends the objectives of the Training and Development Agency for Schools listed in section 1(2) of the Education Act 1994 to include matters relating to all members of the school work force. In the Bill, the listed functions of the new agency do not include all the functions of the Teacher Training Agency. From memory, one of the TTA’s function is to secure the appropriate supply of teachers. That is not included in the Bill. After this Bill is enacted, are we to have two Acts, the Education 1994 Act and this one, both containing different functions for the new agency?
Secondly, clause 75(5) states:
“For the purposes of this Part, the school workforce consists of the following members—
(a) persons who work in schools”—
which is quite clear, and I presume includes all non-classroom workers—
“and,
(b) persons not falling within paragraph (a) who are teachers or carry out work that consists of or includes teaching.”
That could include itinerant music teachers and people brought in for special reasons. It may even mean supply teachers. I do not know. I am all in favour of the revamped agency taking over responsibility for the whole school working community, but we are discussing an agency that will have responsibility for the training of the dinner staff, the caretakers and the people who work on the grounds. The provision will almost double the responsibilities of the new agency. Well, perhaps they will not increase by that much, but the provision will massively increase the agency’s responsibilities.
I would like to hear from the Minister how he envisages the new agency expanding its staff, its required expertise and its budget to cover the increase, and whether he can assure me that the new agency will be competent to train groundsmen, for instance, in how to look after football pitches, or caretakers in how to unblock toilets. It is a huge increase and it is welcome, but I do not get any indication from the Bill of how the competencies of the new agency will change and expand to cope with it. Those questions will come up again in relation to schedule 13, where I think there are some more anomalies, but I will raise those when we discuss that schedule. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those points.

Stephen Twigg: This is an important part of the Bill. The clause sets out the overarching framework for the activities of the Training and Development Agency for Schools. My hon. Friend has just asked about the remit of the agency, as set out in the Bill, and how it fits in with previous legislation, and particularly the 1994 Act. I can certainly assure him that the duty on the Secretary of State under section 11A of the 1994 Act remains in force. It remains the primary function of the agency to ensure that we see a continuing improvement in the standards of teaching and learning in our schools.
In response to the perfectly reasonable points that my hon. Friend raised, it is worth clarifying that the agency’s job is about making training available. It is not about the direct delivery of that training. It needs to build the capacity in the market and to do that in conjunction with a range of organisations, including some that the hon. Member for Upminster has set out in her new clause, to which I will come in a moment.
The role is therefore different. It addresses the needs of the whole school work force in the way that has been set out. The role is geared to raising standards in the classroom. For example, it is geared to learning assistants, sports specialists and others and to ensuring that the proper training, support and development is in place for those other members of staff, as well as for teachers in the classroom. The provision, and the associated work that is going on to ensure that it becomes a reality, is the product of a great deal of debate, discussion and engagement. The agency itself is keen to take on the role and believes that it has the capacity and resources to do so. Detailed work is going on between our Department and the agency to ensure that the resources are in place. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to set that out in much more detail and to copy that to all members of the Committee.
On new clause 10, I welcome the acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that, in exercising its functions, the new agency needs to work closely with other bodies with an interest in raising the standards of teaching and learning, such as the General Teaching Councils and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. However, the new clause is in danger of achieving precisely the opposite of what she wants. Similar, related amendments were first tabled in another place.  In response, Carol Adams, the chief executive of the General Teaching Council for England, writing to my noble Friend Lord Filkin, said that
“while we do not believe that these amendments have undermined the concrete and positive nature of our partnership working and contribution to the TTA, we are concerned that they may have had the potential to do so”.
I know that that view is shared by the agency.
In encouraging the agency to take an inclusive approach to its business, it is vital that we do not encumber it with bureaucratic procedures to an extent that could inhibit its ability to act. The new clause seeks to oblige the agency to consult various organisations and agencies before doing anything with the objective of raising the standard of teaching and other school work force activities, or promoting careers in the school work force. In practice, that would encompass most of what the agency’s routine funding is for and its other activities, and it could turn out to be—I am sure that this is unintended—a recipe for pointless red tape and wasted time and resources for all the bodies involved. If there is any doubt on the issue, let me assure hon. Members that the TTA already works closely, not only with ourselves, but with the General Teaching Councils and the QCA—for example, through the School Workforce Development Board and the school work force strategy group. Likewise, in the past, the TTA has always consulted those and other bodies when they were likely to have an interest in particular activities. The new body, the TDA, will obviously continue to do so in the future.
New clause 16 raises the important issue of parliamentary oversight of the TDA. The TTA is already accountable to Parliament in two main ways. First it is required to make an annual report on its activities to the Secretary of State, who in turn is required to lay the report before both Houses. Secondly, the agency is required to submit its accounts annually to the Secretary of State—and to the Comptroller and Auditor General—who in turn is required to lay them before both Houses with his report on them.
The provisions figure in schedule 1 of the 1994 Act, and they are re-enacted in schedule 13 of the Bill. We have proposed no lessening of parliamentary scrutiny of the finances and performance of the agency and it remains open to either House to debate or table questions on any of these documents. The mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny, inquiry and, if need be, censure that I have described are proportionate to the importance of the work that the agency undertakes.
In the light of that, I do not believe that it is necessary for us to adopt the proposal that the hon. Lady has put before us. Both new clauses 10 and 16 may have unintended negative consequences, so I hope that she will reflect on what I have said and not press the motion to a Division.

Angela Watkinson: The remit of the new agency is clearly wider than that embraced by the General Teaching Council because the career development of other categories of staff in schools will be covered by the new agency, whereas the GTC has not traditionally  involved itself in that. I would like to see career paths to enable teaching assistants, for example, to move into teaching and I wonder whether the General Teaching Council would be attracted to that and might give it as a reason for becoming involved with the new agency.
Given the Minister’s reassurance that new clause 16 is a duplication of what appears elsewhere in the Bill, I will not press my new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Membership etc. of Agency

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 77, page 43, line 38, at end insert—
‘(1A)In appointing the members of the Agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him—
(a)to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in—
(i)teaching in schools,
(ii)teaching in higher education (other than training teachers), or
(iii)training teachers, or
(b)to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for—
(i)the provision of education in schools,
(ii)the provision of higher education (other than the training of teachers), or
(iii)the training of teachers; and in appointing such persons he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of, or in carrying responsibility for, such matters.
(1B)In considering the appointment of members in accordance with subsection (1A) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons whose relevant experience or responsibility is, or was, in or in relation to—
(a)institutions of a denominational character, or
(b)teaching persons with special educational needs.’.
This amendment relates to appointing members to the agency and the circumstances surrounding their appointment. The inclusion of people with relevant expertise and experience would be essential in enabling the agency to exercise its functions. The appropriateness and relevance of qualification and experience of those people appointed to the agency is important and it must ensure that the greatest expertise is available to the agency so that standards can be driven up. Every element of the whole spectrum of school provision should be included in the field of expertise in the new agency.

Colin Pickthall: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is aiming at, but the list set out in the amendment seems to me a very limited one. I know that the phrase “desirability of including” is used, but it is nevertheless limited, particularly taking into account the expansion of the responsibilities of the agency, which we discussed a few moments ago. The provision also seems a bit incestuous, in that the list is entirely composed of those who have come through the route of teaching in schools or higher education.
I do not therefore support the amendment, although I sympathise with the hon. Lady in her attempt to clarify what sorts of people will be required for the agency. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to what extent the list in the amendment would reflect the make-up of the Teacher Training Agency as it is now and as it has functioned for some years.
I have a simple question about the clause. It is very open ended in stating that the agency
“is to consist of such number of members appointed by the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may determine”.
That could mean any number of people, and could be added to whenever a Secretary of State thought fit. I am sure that the present Secretary of State would not do that, but the agency could be infinitely expandable; every time a problem came up someone would be bunged on to it. Eventually about 500 people would be sitting there trying to sort out a new range of responsibilities.
Why is there no upper limit on the number of people who can be members of the agency? Would it be advisable for the Minister to think about the range of suitable people, from business, trade unions and commerce—given the importance of teacher education to the welfare of the country—and to come up with a list of appropriate areas of expertise that might be represented in the new agency?

Stephen Twigg: Amendment No. 25 would re-enact a substantial portion of the 1994 Act, so the answer to my hon. Friend is that the list very much reflects the existing make-up of the TTA. However, in his opening remarks, he set out the argument against the amendment, which is that it is prescriptive, particularly in the context of the changing role and remit of the agency.
I take my hon. Friend’s point that, in extremis, the clause could result in a very large agency. However, we want to maintain flexibility, because of the challenges and the way they change over time. The agency may meet challenges in two or three years that even this Committee could not anticipate today. Clearly, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the membership of the agency does not become unmanageable, and the Secretary of State will be the guardian of that.
My hon. Friend has raised an important point about direct representation of industry and employers in the agency’s work. It is important that we maintain the flexibility that our proposal sustains, rather than setting out in the Bill the detail of membership which, as he said, could be unnecessarily restrictive.
I do not suggest that the groups specified in the amendment or in the 1994 Act should be without representation; we want sufficient flexibility in the system to enable those groups with a close interest in the activities of the agency to be represented, although not at others’ expense. My fear is that the amendment would unnecessarily restrict our ability to proceed in that way. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Angela Watkinson: It is difficult to know how justified the Minister’s comments are without knowing how many members the agency will have, but I should like to make it clear that I believe that someone with expertise in special educational needs, and a representative of denominational schools, should be included in the agency. With that caveat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 - The Training and Development Agency for Schools

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

Angela Watkinson: I glanced quickly through the schedule as we discussed clause 77, and seek clarification from the Minister of the supplementary powers that the schedule confers on the agency. The agency’s powers are wide ranging. It can
“acquire and dispose of land and other property ... enter into contracts ... invest sums not immediately required for the purposes of the discharge of their functions, and ... accept gifts or money, land or other property.”
There is one caveat in paragraph 1(2):
 “The Agency may not borrow”.
I am interested to hear more, particularly about the acquisition and disposal of land and other property. I felt, as I glanced through that list of supplementary powers, that they were quite draconian. I wonder how the Minister envisages that they might be used.

Colin Pickthall: It may be my misunderstanding, but paragraph 5 states that
 “The Agency ... must pay to their members such salaries or fees, and such travelling, subsistence and other allowances, as the Secretary of State may determine”.
I take it that “members” means board members. Am I right? Paragraph 6(2) states:
 “The Agency may pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Agency may determine.”
Paragraph 6(3) states:
 “The employees are to be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Agency may determine.”
Am I right in identifying what appears to be a contradiction, in that paragraph 5(1)(a) refers only to board members?
I shall make a wider point while I am on my feet. I am concerned that the schedule and the relevant clauses seem to contain an open-ended budget for the TTA. How and when is the overall budget for it determined? I hope that the agency will have to limit its expenditure, because the schedule and some previous clauses contain many sentences that suggest that it can spend whatever it likes on this and on that. What is the overall budget likely to be?

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion of the agency having an unlimited call on public funds or on the resources of the Department. It receives a budget, as will any other agency with which the Department works. It works to a remit letter from the Secretary of State, which sets out the terms of its functions, such as the new role that has just been discussed in our debates on previous clauses.
I absolutely assure the hon. Lady that the change made by the schedule is modest. The provisions are taken largely from previous legislation such as the Education Act 1994, except in three respects. The schedule entitles a representative of the National Assembly for Wales to attend meetings and to take part in discussions for the first time. The representative may not, however, vote when members take decisions. The change simply regularises a long-standing and formal arrangement under which a National Assembly official has attended meetings. Paragraph 1(1) makes a provision similar in effect to that found in the 1994 Act, but in a different form given the breadth of the new powers conferred on the agency under clause 83. The new power includes the ability to borrow money—the hon. Lady referred to this—but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The change is intended simply to allow the agency to make use of the Government procurement card, a service that offers greater purchasing efficiency to bodies in the public sector.
Consideration of the schedule in another place also brought to light the fact that a number of technical changes were needed to take account of developments in Government accounting practice since 1994. Those modifications have now been incorporated into the schedule. Beyond that, it simply re-legislates the provisions of the 1994 Act. I hope that the Committee will agree that they are sensible and proportionate provisions and that the schedule should be agreed to.

Colin Pickthall: May I ask for confirmation of whether my analysis of the meaning of the word “members” was right?

Stephen Twigg: I apologise. I nodded vigorously when my hon. Friend was speaking, but that will not be shown in the record of the Committee’s proceedings. His explanation was certainly right; the first part refers to the members of the board; the others are employees of the agency.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clauses 78 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Publication of proposals with consent of Secretary of State

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 65, page 39, line 3, at end insert
‘, including schools wholly rebuilt as part of Building Schools for the Future’.
The amendment would be added to the end of subsection (2) of proposed new section 28A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The provision is about the publication of proposals with the consent of the Secretary of State. It states:
 “Any persons (referred to in this Part as “promoters”) may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish under this section their proposals to establish (otherwise than pursuant to a notice under section 66 of the Education Act 2005) a new foundation or voluntary school which is proposed to be maintained by a local education authority in England.”
The amendment would add the phrase
“including schools wholly rebuilt as part of Building Schools for the Future”.

Derek Twigg: The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) asked on Second Reading whether schools build under the “Building Schools for the Future” programme would be subject to the competition requirement set out in clause 66. Local authorities will be required to hold competitions whenever statutory proposals are required to establish schools, except where the Secretary of State consents to the publication of the proposals under clause 65.
We believe that there is a positive relationship between the diversity of secondary provision and higher standards. We want to extend the opportunities available for alternative providers of secondary education to set up schools. It is particularly important to create increased choice at a time when local authorities are taking a strategic view of their provisions and planning reorganisations as part of the “Building Schools for the Future” programme. The programme offers local authorities an opportunity to reorganise provision in a way that fulfils the long-term vision for education. We expect all authorities, in developing their plans for “Building Schools for the Future”, to undertake a root-and-branch review of the nature and pattern of provision in their area to ensure that it meets the needs of communities.
The programme is designed to drive innovation and transformation in education. To secure their participation in the programme, local authorities, working with other stakeholders, must come forward with bold plans that demonstrate their commitment to those objectives. We therefore expect that local authorities’ plans will entail the closure of some existing schools and the establishment of new ones. As I have already explained, local authorities will normally have to hold competitions whenever proposals are required to establish a school.
More generally, “Building Schools for the Future” guidance requires local authorities to consider how to secure a diverse range of schools in their areas. We expect local authorities fully to explore the options for introducing innovative approaches to school  management, including an evaluation of academy options. Local authorities will also wish to consider other ways of involving new partners in providing new schools. Clause 66 allows local authorities to hold competitions voluntarily, even if they were not required to hold one.
The Department and our delivery partner for the programme, “Partnerships for Schools”, challenge local authorities to show how their proposed capital investment will translate into demonstrable educational benefits. Authorities are not allowed to proceed with their plans until they have done so.
The Government have a joined-up approach to promoting diversity in the provision of schools. The school organisation provisions of the Bill mean that local authorities will not normally be able to set up schools without inviting a range of providers to make proposals. The programme challenges local authorities to reorganise provision in their areas and provides resources to fund new schools. Together, the measures will guarantee that new providers have many opportunities to establish schools and to increase the choice of schools available to pupils and parents.
There are, however, some circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to require a local authority to hold a competition, such as if a local authority, having undertaken the thorough review required to secure inclusion in the programme, decided that an existing school should be rebuilt or transferred to a new site. I hope that hon. Members agree that it should be possible for a good school to be rebuilt without a requirement for a competition. To introduce such a requirement would be bureaucratic and unnecessary.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We on this side—there is the royal “we” again—support the expansion of school provision by a range of providers. As that is, in part, the same aim that the Minister described, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Proposals for new secondary schools in England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: This is an important clause, and I shall discuss it in connection with the accompanying schedule, which touches on some significant territory. I shall attempt to identify some significant flaws in the legislation.
The legislation may be largely academic in some respects, as falling school rolls across the country mean that there may not be that many new schools  opening. However, any new schools will have to follow a particular process, and it is the weaknesses of that process on which I wish to dwell.
The basic concept is that local authorities are not the generators but the promoters of schools. They decide that there is a need for a school and put out advertisements indicating that the need exists. Various providers, including local authorities themselves, are then allowed to come into the frame. They may be anything from Wackford Squeers to the most exalted academy, but they all can come into the frame. The process is rigorously controlled by exacting rules and so on, but, none the less, it is a kind of beauty contest to decide what best fits the model that the local authority originally decided that it wanted.
A process is mapped out by which the decision goes to the school organisation committee, which has wide powers to consider the proposals. It can reject the proposals, approve a proposal without modification, approve a proposal with modification, or, if it is unable to do any of those three things, send the whole process to the adjudicator and let him make the decision. If it dallies for some time, not making the decision once the process is under way, the Secretary of State has power to intervene and send the process to the adjudicator anyway. However, the decision-making bodies are the school organisation committees and the adjudicators. They decide what best satisfies the concept of a new school that the local authority originally envisaged.
I do not understand what is wrong with the local authority making that decision. The local authority is a representative, democratic body. I see no reason to prefer that the school organisation committee or adjudicator should take the decision. There may be cases in which the local authority is incapable of making the decision, but that is a fairly unlikely contingency.
There is a downside to letting the school organisation committee make the decision, rather than leaving it with the local authority, as it traditionally would have been: the school organisation committee will not, ultimately, have to fund whatever it recommends. The local authority will probably be involved as a funder or at any rate as a landlord for any new establishment, whether it is an academy or any other educational institution that the school organisation committee chooses.
The problem, which I tried to clarify in the Chamber, is that where a number of schools are promoted by the local authority and chosen by the school organisation committee in a specific area—let us suppose that an authority is undergoing a major process of configuring its secondary schools—it is likely that there will be some kind of result. However, whereas the local authority has a specific duty to ensure that an equal offer is made to all children in its area, that there is an equity of outcome and that all children receive their entitlement, there is no guarantee that the activities of a school organisation committee, however well intentioned, will achieve that result. The committee may, for example, recommend schools with  admission arrangements, which to some extent conflicts with most local authorities’ laudable objective of ensuring that all children get a fair deal.
That is the crux of the matter. It cannot be said that the procedure will not achieve a highly desirable outcome whereby every child receives the same type of educational entitlement. I am not saying one size fits all—a phrase that I hate; it has been used so many times, by so many Ministers and in so many circumstances that I thought that I would never utter it myself. Unfortunately, it has slipped out, so I shall have to check myself in future. If the local authority is empowered to deliver certain laudable social objectives and to ensure that every child who is represented through it achieves everything that their parents would aspire to, but are in no way disadvantaged by whatever educational arrangements transpire, it does not seem to me that an arrangement whereby the matter could be decided by the school organisation committee or by the adjudicator, or delayed and then decided by the adjudicator, will necessarily produce that outcome.
There is a strong suspicion that the intention behind the procedure is to generate a plethora of academies throughout the country. There has been criticism recently of what the project of academies is delivering. Intellectually, I cannot see that intention in the Bill, because although an academy can be a response to a local authority promoting a school or putting out a prospectus for one, there is no onus on the school organisation committee necessarily to choose that project. In fact, there is a further hitch in getting an academy proposition going, as the Secretary of State is necessarily involved in the complex of arrangements that are associated with delivering an academy in an area.
There is no credible case for saying that the provision is just about academies, full stop, but there is a case to be answered on how the arrangement ensures that there will not be myriad different admission arrangements in a local authority area that do not provide equity of outcome for each child. That is my fundamental objection, and nothing that the Minister has said so far in the debate has convinced me that it is other than a fairly solid objection. I may well get a nice letter in a few days’ time, explaining to me how wrong I am.

Derek Twigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the points that he has made. It is important to note that the clause is intended to improve the diversity of provision. As to the question why the school organisation committees will take the decisions, rather than local education authorities, part of the reason is that local authorities may publish their own proposals for community schools, alongside any received from other promoters. It would not accord with what we want to achieve if those authorities, as organisations that might be presenting such proposals, also took the decisions.
The school organisation committee is an independent body, which is well represented in the community. It is also worth pointing out that not all schools are LEA schools. In view of that fact, the  importance of the committee’s independent take on such matters and the fact that the local authority may be able to make its own proposals, the Government think that it is most fitting for the school organisation committee to make the decisions.

John Pugh: The Minister must at least accept that school organisation committees throughout the land are still in a fairly rudimentary form. If we carried out an examination of who was serving on those committees, how long they had been there and what they understood their task to be, I think that we would be surprised at how unprepared they were for some of the quite onerous tasks ahead of them. That is clearly a matter of concern.
The Minister referred to the need for an independent decision maker if the local authority were in the frame, but that argument is slightly weakened by the fact that local authorities are among the major representatives on the school organisation committees. Even though his approach provides an advantage, that does not offset the disadvantages, because it would after all be the local authority that saw a need for a school in the first place.
If I may make one more point, because I do not want to make another speech out of this intervention—

Eric Forth: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention on the Minister’s reply to him, and that we should observe the proprieties. We are running in a fairly relaxed mode today, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can bear it in mind that interventions are supposed to be brief. We have quite a lot of latitude for dialogue in Committee, but I ask him to keep his intervention brief.

John Pugh: The intervention concludes on the point that my argument has never been against diversity; it is about which is the appropriate decision-making body.

Derek Twigg: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in that respect, but the fact that LEA can itself put forward proposals is a key part of the argument.
The Department has dealt with correspondence in a relatively small number of cases in which concerns have been expressed about procedures followed by the school organisation committee or the LEA, and we found no evidence of abuse or any cause for the Secretary of State to intervene. As I mentioned before, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, it is possible to appeal to the adjudicator.
I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. We are keen to push forward on the matter of diversity and to ensure that the best local decisions are made. We shall keep a close watching brief on how the matter develops, and I hope that he will be satisfied with that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 67 - Rationalisation of school places in England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Pugh: I do not have a particular objection to the clause; I merely want to make sure that I have understood it properly. I prefaced my remarks on the previous clause with the suggestion that we did not need to worry too much as very few schools would be opening because of demographic trends. Plenty of schools will close because of demographic trends, and the process is often heart-rending and difficult. Their lordships have tried to qualify that process in later clauses.
Will the Minister assure me that my understanding of the procedure is correct? Essentially, I understand that he will recommend that the local authority take action where the Department for Education and Skills has identified excessive provision, examined the figures on surplus places and decided that it is time for action. The Department can then require the local authority to take action, and the authority will have the job of preparing a plan that will presumably go through the school organisation committee and possibly on to the adjudicator, with all the upset and upheaval that that customarily involves.
That is more or less the current procedure, and there is nothing novel about it. The Minister gives various signals or sometimes the local authority reaches conclusions for itself because of financial strictures and so on, and the process begins with that format. However, there seems to be one novel provision in the legislation. Where the local authority drags its feet and does not exercise its power, the Minister is given powers to intervene and do the job for it. In other words, if provision is not rationalised, the brave Secretary of State will step in and take all the odium upon himself. That is very noble of him, and local authorities will be pleased that he is playing backstop, although I understand that in the first instance he will not name particular schools.
At some point as the Secretary of State works through the process, however, the local authority may find it unbearable. Metropolitan authorities have particular problems with local elections every year, and nothing is more guaranteed to gain adverse publicity and an adverse reaction from constituents than going round the place deciding to close schools. It strikes me that many local authorities will be slightly pleased with the clause, and the Minister may live to regret it, but if I have not understood it correctly, that will not be the case.

Angela Watkinson: Most of us will know that it takes a brave local authority to undertake rationalisation where there are small but popular schools. It has recently happened twice in my local education authority area, although, thankfully, not in my constituency. Schools have had falling rolls and have been down to barely one form at entry level, but they have still been extremely popular, and they have been defended to the death by local families, with vocal  protest meetings and petitions. Such was the pressure put on the local authority it decided not to go ahead with school closures, despite the fact that the schools had more than 25 per cent. spare capacity. There may well be local authorities that welcome the intervention of the Secretary of State to take that responsibility off their shoulders.

Derek Twigg: We might be able to provide some useful information to enlighten the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southport about the powers and what has happened in the past. That will give them a better understanding of where we are and what we are doing.
The reserve powers have not yet been used. In practice, we have found that LEAs are usually happy to work with the Department to explore the options for reducing wasteful surplus places. The powers have proved useful for demonstrating our commitment to the proper supply of certain school places and for requiring action if it is not taken voluntarily. It is not always the case that local authorities uniformly put in place best practice or that they will always do so in every area of their activities. It would be irresponsible not to have the powers if they were ever unfortunately needed. I stress that the provisions give the Secretary of State power not to decide the proposals, but only to require that they are brought forward. Even in extremis, if she were to bring forward the proposals, they would still be decided by the local school organisation committee, and if it could not agree, they would pass to the schools adjudicator.

Angela Watkinson: Where a school has a seriously falling roll and is recommended for closure because it is no longer viable, but house building is about to take place in the vicinity, only children who are in the area at the time can currently be taken into consideration when calculating the need for places. When it is clear that new housing is going to mushroom in the vicinity and that school places will be needed again, can that be taken into consideration after the school has closed?

Derek Twigg: Having been involved myself over the years in a few school reorganisations and closures, I understand the hon. Lady’s point. The LEA can do that now and tell the council what future needs will be in its area.
The powers are firmly in the context of the existing structures: they do not impose any central control, but merely enable the Secretary of State to initiate the debate, with consultation in the area, the publication of a notice describing the proposed changes, and the opportunity for local people to comment or object. They are part of our approach to local decision making, which involves local people rather than sidelining them.

John Pugh: To come to a specific situation, let us suppose that there were no community consensus in a particular area about rationalisation. If various schools were spoken of, but it had not been decided which were the right ones for closure, there would be  what one might call a “council paralysis”. If the council officers or the cabinet member for education failed to come to any conclusion, and therefore failed to put anything before the schools organisation committee, would the Secretary of State’s powers apply, so that the cabinet member of a particular local authority could be coerced into putting recommendations before the schools organisation committee? In that way, the committee would still have a role, but the missing step is not that it would be unwilling to decide, but that the council itself would duck out of the responsibility of producing a recommendation.

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman suggests a hypothetical situation. I refer him to what I said a few moments earlier: clearly, we want to ensure that a local solution is found. Any responsible LEA working with its schools and the community would want to come forward with a solution. As hon. Members have explained, these are often difficult situations. In extremis, as I said before, the Secretary of State can intervene to bring forward our proposals, which would then be decided by the local schools organisation committee. It is difficult to give a clear answer to a hypothetical situation, and we would have to consider each case on its merits. As I said, the powers have not been used so far, and usually a solution is found. The fact that the Secretary of State has that power is usually good enough to ensure some movement in such difficult circumstances.
We think that that is the right approach to these problems, and we do not accept that there should be a free-for-all with schools able to take decisions in complete isolation from the local context of other schools and the LEA.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Closure of rural primary schools

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 37.
Government new clause 17—Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school.
Government amendment No. 31.
Government amendment No. 34.

Don Touhig: Clause 70, which I will invite Members on all sides to vote against when the question is put, is in the Bill following a joint Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment inserted on Third Reading in the other place. Although the protection that it offers is not, in our view, really necessary, since most of it was  copied from existing guidance, we are not opposed to its provisions for that same reason. The Government gave assurances in the other place that we would strengthen guidance along the lines of their lordships’ amendment. However, the will of the other place was that the provisions should be in the Bill.
The clause requires that before a rural primary school may be closed, parents and district, parish or community councils must be consulted, and the implications of closure for transport and the local community and alternatives to closure must be considered. Legal advice, particularly from parliamentary counsel, is that the amendment is technically flawed and should be recast. New clause 17, therefore, is a version of clause 70 that has been tweaked to make it legally more watertight and workable in practice.
This version of the provisions has been accepted by the sponsors of clause 70 in the other place. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 70 disagreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 - School organisation: further amendments

Amendment made: No. 37, in schedule 12, page 118, line 23, at end insert—
‘8AIn section 138 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (orders and regulations), in subsection (4), after “20(7),” insert “29(9A),”.’. —[Mr. Touhig.]

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 - Closure of special schools: statutory consultation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 18—Proposals relating to maintained special school.
New clause 11—Closure of special schools: authorisation.
‘(1)No special school in England shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Secretary of State.
(2)The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow him to perform his duties under this section.
(3)No special school in Wales shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Assembly.
(4)The Assembly shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow it to perform its duties under this section.’.

Stephen Twigg: I would like to speak to new clause 18, and reassure hon. Members that we have accepted the intention of their lordships with regard to clause 72. However, as in the previous discussion on rural schools, because of technical weaknesses, the clause as drafted would not have had the effect intended by the other place.
The existing provision on consultation in the case of the closure of special schools is contained in section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as well as in guidance from the Department. The 1998 Act provides that when an LEA or a governing body intends to discontinue a maintained special school or make prescribed alterations to it, it must, before publishing any such proposals, consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate and, in doing so, must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly.
The proposed Government new clause does not affect the substance of the clause. The requirement for consultation in the clause has been inserted into section 31 of the 1998 Act, where the existing provisions regarding special schools lie. The wording of the new provisions has been made consistent with existing legislative provisions. The provision is restricted to community or foundation special schools in line with the existing wording of section 31 and, indeed, the new clause goes wider than what was introduced by their lordships on Third Reading in another place. It imposes a specific statutory requirement for the local authority or governing body to consult parents of registered pupils and the placing local authority not only prior to the publication of any proposal to discontinue the school, but prior to any proposal to make a prescribed alteration to the school. For example, that would cover a proposal to reduce the number of pupils in a school so dramatically that the school was no longer viable.
The drafting makes separate provision in respect of proposals to establish new special schools, maintaining the status quo in this regard, and the wording in proposed new subsection (4A)(a) and (b) is not applicable to new schools. The new clause retains the requirement that in exercising the specific statutory duty to consult, regard must be had to guidance. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that we have made contact with their lordships through the usual channels, and they have said that they are happy with what we propose. I therefore trust that our new clause will have the support of Members on both sides of the Committee.
New clause 11 is unnecessary, as the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals submitted by local authorities and the needs of the local community. The new clause would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process in which the existing safeguards are sufficient.
Members on both sides of the House are aware of the often difficult, complex, and sometimes emotive issues that can surround the closure of special schools. However, we should also acknowledge that other closures, such as one or more special schools closing to move to a more modern facility, have secured local agreement. I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no good reason why decisions such as that should be referred to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly for Wales.
In Wales, any disputed proposals are already referred to the National Assembly for its decision. The new clause would require even closure proposals that are accepted by parents and other local interested parties to be approved by the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.
I reassure hon. Members that there is no question of local authorities being allowed to decide to close a special school arbitrarily. There is an established process for formal consultation before proposals are published. After publication, there is a two-month objection period, during which anyone can submit their formal objections to the authority. Any such statutory objections must be sent to the school organisation committee or, in Wales, to the National Assembly.
A proposal put to a schools organisation committee may be implemented without reference to any other body if it is approved unanimously. If the committee cannot decide unanimously, the case will pass to the independent adjudicator for determination. Adjudicators look afresh at all cases that are referred to them. They consider each case on its merits and take account of the reasons for disagreement at local level. The adjudicator may reject the proposals, approve them without modification, or approve them with modification subject to consultation. Decisions taken by adjudicators are binding on all involved. They can be challenged only through judicial review.
In Wales, the function of assessing disputed proposals on the balance of the arguments and of taking a decision that can be challenged only by judicial review rests with the Assembly’s Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.
Local authorities are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils and parents in their areas. That is why the Government deliberately strengthened local participation in decisions about patterns of provision. In England, they deliberately removed Ministers from direct involvement in those decisions.
New clause 11 would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process. These are difficult, complex and important decisions. Consultation is vital, and concern in our communities is understandable when consultation does not run properly. The provisions that I have outlined are the best way of ensuring that decisions are taken at local level. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause.

Angela Watkinson: This is a subject close to my heart. I predicted that the Minister would start by telling me that my new clause was unnecessary, but it seeks to halt the closure of special schools.
Since 1997, there have been 70 closures of special schools, yet the number of children in mainstream schools with special needs has risen by 49 per cent. We know that about a quarter of all pupils will have some sort of special needs in part of their school career, if not throughout it. There has also been an increase in the number of children with behavioural problems, which is almost a separate issue.
The new clause states:
 “No special school in England shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Secretary of State ... The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow him to perform his duties under this section.”
It continues:
“No special school in Wales shall be closed without the prior authorisation of the Assembly ... The Assembly shall by regulations prescribe a suitable mechanism to allow it to perform its duties under this section.”
The needs of special needs children are so diverse that it is impossible to generalise. Many children with special needs—with physical disabilities, health problems or other reasons that give rise to special educational needs—do well in mainstream schools. Others do not. Some children with special needs, no matter how sympathetically or well a mainstream school tries to cope with them, need the more protected environment of a special school, such as the smaller classes. Some of those whose needs are profound are unable to cope, so if they were placed in a mainstream school, it would place a huge burden on teaching staff and the time that they would need devoted to them would be detrimental to the other children.
We need a balance. We need provision in mainstream schools for special needs students who can cope and with whom the school can cope. At the same time, the demand for places in separate special schools is growing. For example, in the whole of Greater London, only one special school caters for children who are profoundly deaf. Lots of deaf children cannot get a place in that school. It is just one example of a range of health problems that means that children need special school provision.
Rather than see any more closures, I wish to see more special schools established where demand has been shown. The purpose of new clause 11 is to halt the closure of special schools and to give us cause to reconsider inclusion, because that is not right for every special needs child. It is right for some but not others. We need to keep the range available, so that children have the ideal provision to suit their purposes.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 72 disagreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 17 - Proposals for discontinuing of rural primary school

‘(1)Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (proposals for discontinuance of community, foundation, voluntary or maintained nursery school) is amended as follows.
(2)For subsection (4) substitute—
“(4A)The matters to which the relevant body shall have regard in formulating any proposals under this section in relation to a rural primary school include—
(a)the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community,
(b)the availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of transport to other schools,
(c)any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase, and
(d)any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school;
and in considering these matters the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(4B)Before publishing any proposals under this section which relate to a rural primary school, the relevant body shall consult—
(a)the registered parents of registered pupils at the school,
(b)where the relevant body are the governing body of the school, the local education authority,
(c)in a case where the local education authority are a county council in England, any district council for the area in which the school is situated,
(d)any parish council or community council for the area in which the school is situated, and
(e)such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate.
(4C)Before publishing any other proposals under this section the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate.
(4D)In discharging their duty under subsection (4B) or (4C) the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”
(3)After subsection (9) insert—
“(9A)In this section “rural primary school” means a primary school designated as such for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.”.’.—[Derek Twigg.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18 - Proposals relating to maintained special school

‘In section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (proposals in respect of community or foundation special school), for subsection (4) substitute—
“(4A)Before publishing any proposals under this section to make any prescribed alteration to a school, or to discontinue a school, the relevant body shall consult—
(a)the registered parents of registered pupils at the school,
(b)any local education authority which maintain a statement under section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (statement of special educational needs) in respect of a registered pupil at the school, and
(c)such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate.
(4B)Before publishing any proposals under this section to establish a new school, the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate.
(4C)In discharging their duty under subsection (4A) or (4B) the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”.’.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 - Abolition of School Organisation Committee

‘(1)Sections 24 to 26 and Schedules 4 and 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) shall cease to have effect.
(2)The Education (School Organisation Committee) Regulations 1999 shall cease to have effect.
(3)The Education (Schools Organisation Plans) Regulations 1999 shall cease to have effect.
(4)The Education (References to Adjudicator) Regulations 1999 shall cease to have effect.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would abolish the school organisation committees. That is because the Conservative party wishes new schools to be established wherever it can be demonstrated that there is parental demand, and new schools to be opened by faith groups, charities, voluntary organisations, the private sector or groups of parents. In those circumstances, the functions of the school organisation committees would be redundant.

John Pugh: I am fairly unenthusiastic about school organisation committees and adjudicators, but I am also fairly unenthusiastic about educational anarchy. Opening schools willy-nilly strikes me as not being the most prudent use of public resources. None the less, it is fair to say that, were the new clause to be passed, some hurried consequential amendments would have to be made in many of the clauses that we dealt with earlier. Since that work has not been done, I throw the ball back into the Minister’s court to respond.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Lady said, and we agree, the new clause would effectively abolish the decision makers for changes to schools in England—the local school organisation committees and schools adjudicators. It would remove the duty on local authorities to establish school organisation committees and the Secretary of State’s power to appoint school adjudicators.
In passing, I note that adjudicators decide cases of contentious admissions arrangements that are referred to them, as well as deciding school organisation issues. The new clause would, therefore, disadvantage parties with an interest in admissions in the area, including parents. In particular, it would no longer be possible to refer to the adjudicator objections to school admission arrangements as provided for in section 90 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
As hon. Members know, before the decision-making arrangements were introduced by the 1998 Act, decisions on statutory proposals were commonly taken by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills. We took the view that such decisions should be made at local level by the key stakeholders who understand local issues and are able to take a balanced view of the competing arguments. That would also secure local ownership of the important decisions that affect the local community. That local knowledge and the ability to balance competing arguments would be important when it came to deciding between a number of different proposals.
The constitution of the school organisation committee was carefully designed to give equal representation to all the local stakeholders—the local authority, which has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places, schools themselves,  through members of their governing bodies, the local Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and the Learning and Skills Council. We think that the system works well and is a sensible middle way between a complete free-for-all and centralised decision making in Whitehall.
We owe it to our children to do our best to ensure that the school system delivers equity and quality for all. The system that has been devised offers a means of achieving that. There is no evidence of a clamour for change, although we are not complacent and will continue to monitor arrangements, taking account of the extent to which they deliver good outcomes for local communities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that some such arrangements are necessary and that it is simply not practical for schools to be set up without proper consideration of their viability and the educational and social needs of an area.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister therefore wish to retain the surplus places rule, which prevents popular schools from expanding or new ones setting up because there is sufficient capacity in the area as a whole?

Derek Twigg: That rule does not exist any more. The Bill enables popular schools to expand. We are keen on that policy.
Hon. Members will be aware that, in the contestability arrangements for new secondary schools, we are proposing to extend delegation further to ensure that decisions that, under the present arrangements, are taken by the Secretary of State will be taken by the local school organisation committee or, in some circumstances, the schools adjudicator.
The sections of the 1998 Act that require the publication of proposals for changes to schools will still remain. They require the proposals to be sent to the school organisation committee for a decision. Those proposing such changes could not decide on the proposals themselves. If the new clause were accepted, no alternative decision maker would exist. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my arguments on that point.

Angela Watkinson: I do not altogether accept the Minister’s arguments but, as I am without troops, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9 - Community schools, foundation and voluntary aided schools

‘(1)If a community or foundation school wishes to change its status to a voluntary aided school, the governors need to seek the approval of—
(a)a simple majority of the registered parents of registered pupils at the school; and
(b)the appropriate diocesan authority.
(2)Where the conditions under subsection (1) have been met, no notices for consultation need to be published and the proposal does not need to be referred to the school organisation committee.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would give more autonomy to individual schools if they decided to change their status.

Stephen Twigg: The Government greatly value the historic and ongoing contribution that faith organisations make to the provision of publicly funded education in England and Wales. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches already provide thousands of state schools, but Jewish schools have existed in England on that basis for many years. Since 1997, other faith groups have taken the opportunity to set up schools in the state sector, including Muslims, Sikhs, the Greek Orthodox Church and Seventh Day Adventists.
The new clause seeks to make it easier for community and foundation schools to become VA schools. Although not all VA schools have a religious character—that is, they are not all faith schools—the majority do, and of course not all schools with a religious character are VA schools. Foundation schools and voluntary controlled schools may also have a religious character.
Under section 35 of the School Standards and Framework Act and schedule 8 to that Act, statutory proposals are required in order to change the character of a school from community or foundation to voluntary aided. Taken together with the Bill, it is not possible for a school that does not have a religious character to acquire a religious character in the course of changing category. To do so, proposals must be published to discontinue the school and to establish a new school with a religious character.
I take this opportunity to explain why we believe the acquisition of a religious character is so fundamental a change that statutory procedures should apply. That belief is consistent with existing legislation. First, the acquisition of a religious character will have an impact on the management and conduct of the school itself. A voluntary aided school with a religious character provides religious education in accordance with the tenets of the faith rather than following the locally agreed syllabus. All schools with a religious character may appoint staff on the basis of faith, and they may give preference in their admission arrangements to members of a particular faith or denomination.
Secondly, the acquisition of a religious character will have implications for the overall pattern of school provision in an area. If schools adopt admission arrangements that give preference to members of a particular faith, it will obviously have an impact on the exercise of parental choice throughout the area. We believe that all local people, and not only the parents of children who attend the school at a particular time, have a right to be consulted on such a significant change and for their voice to be heard. The statutory proposals process required under the 1998 Act guarantees that.
I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that the existing procedures have prevented schools from acquiring a religious character.

John Pugh: In my constituency, the process is actually taking place. Looking at the new clause, can the Minister anticipate difficulties if, for example, the majority of the pupils were Muslim and the proposal had the approval of the local mosque? Because it was Islam rather than Catholic or Church of England, it would not be possible to accomplish the change under the new clause. That could raise questions of equity.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is right. That demonstrates the importance of significant changes in the pattern of local provision being properly considered locally. In a sense, it connects well with what I was about to say in closing.
In recent years, a significant number of proposals have come forward. Since 1999, 14 proposals have been approved in England to establish schools with a religious character in place of existing community schools, as distinct from completely new schools, or existing independent faith-based schools coming into the state sector in place of existing community schools. Two similar schools were established in Wales during the same period. We are committed to reducing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on schools. However, the arrangements ensure that all the relevant local parties have sufficient opportunity to make known their views about changes that will affect not only a particular school—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that—but others in the area. The new clause would deny many local people and parents a say, so I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Angela Watkinson: Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 - Functions to be exercisable by National Assembly for Wales

Amendment made: No. 31, in clause 119, page 65, line 4, at end insert—
‘section (Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school) (proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school);
section (Proposals relating to maintained special school) (proposals relating to maintained special school);’.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 120 to 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 - Repeals

Amendments made: No. 38, in schedule 19, page 150, line 15, at end insert—
 Section 9(2)(ca).’.  No. 39, in schedule 19, page 150, line 25, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 14, paragraphs 1 and 5 to 7.’.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Schedule 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 124 and 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126 - The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made

Amendments made: No. 32, in clause 126, page 67, line 35, after ‘5’, insert ‘, 22A’.
No. 33, in clause 126, page 67, line 44, leave out ‘22 to 24’ and insert ‘22, 23, 24’.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Amendment made: No. 34, in clause 126, page 68, line 3, leave out ‘the Secretary of State’ and insert—
‘(a) for sections (Proposals for discontinuance of rural primary school) and (Proposals relating to maintained special school), and paragraph 8A of Schedule 12 (and section 71 so far as relating to that paragraph)—
(i)in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(ii)in relation to Wales, the Assembly, and
(b)for the other provisions of the Part, the Secretary of State.’.—[Derek Twigg.]

Clause 126, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128 - Short title, etc.

Amendment made: No. 35, in clause 128, page 68, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Clause 128, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 12 - Abolition of Independent Appeals Panels

‘Subsections (3)(c), (4)(a), (6) and (7) of section 52 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (panels to hear appeals against decisions not to reinstate pupils) shall cease to have effect.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about the abolition of independent appeals panels. The decision on appeals against exclusion should remain with the head teacher and governors of a school and should not be subject to being overturned by independent appeals panels. Head teachers exclude only as a last resort, when all their other disciplinary and pastoral procedures have been tried and have failed. Every school in my constituency has a pastoral unit and those units go to extraordinary lengths to turn round children who are disaffected or disruptive in one way or another.
On the rare occasions when exclusion arises, it is only as a result of all other means failing. The head teachers will feel that they have failed; they do not like taking such action. However, when things get to an extreme state and the school feels that it can no longer contain a pupil for whatever reason, once it has made the decision, that decision should not be subject to being overturned by an independent appeals panel that has not been present in the school and is not familiar with the train of events that have led up to the exclusion, which is usually very long. We want the head teacher to have the autonomy, in consultation with his governors, to make a final exclusion order. That is the purpose of the new clause.

John Pugh: I have some sympathy with the general noises that the hon. Lady is making, but she is making the mistake that the Conservatives habitually make: they do not distinguish between how a system works or may work and the principle behind it. The principle behind this system is based on the sound argument that, although head teachers are undoubtedly wise, competent individuals who get most things right, they do not invariably get everything right. Although most head teachers, as she said, expel or exclude pupils for good reasons that no rational person would object to, we cannot rule out the possibility that, in certain circumstances, a head teacher may not do that and may not behave as other head teachers might behave in similar circumstances.
Equally, there may be appeals panels that are untutored, know little about the realities of schools and simply fall for any gullible line spun by any dissenting pupil, but that is not necessarily the case, and it ought not to be. Appeals panels should be appropriately trained and experienced so that they can call the judgments correctly. If we cannot exclude the possibility that a head teacher may be wrong, we must consider that the system proposed by the Conservatives would allow no opportunity for redress or appeal when a headmaster has acted harshly. Although I have encountered lots of complaints about badly behaved children, I have also occasionally seen parents take up issues with respect to how their child has been treated. They are not necessarily parents who are antagonistic towards the objectives of the school.
So, a general prima facie case can be made for having an appeals panel. If there are problems with the working of the panel, they should be studied and the Department for Education and Skills should do its best to get things right so that we do not have all the outcomes that the Conservatives allege that appeals panels are traditionally having, and that they may in some circumstances have. I am not confronted with the empirical evidence at the moment.
When this issue was argued about on the Floor of the House, I think it was a Labour Member who made the point that, if there were not an appeals panel, that would not prevent a case from being taken to court involving the behaviour of a headmaster who it was thought had not been fair. The answer from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) went something like this: “Oh yes, there may be appeals to the courts. If we do not have an appeals  system, perhaps that will be the result. But we will not grant legal aid in those circumstances.” According to that logic, if an injustice is done against a child who comes from a well-heeled family, something can be done, but if an injustice is done against a child whose family do not have any resources, justice will not be done. It is simply not satisfactory to feel comfortable with that outcome. If that is the answer to the problem, the policy as advocated seems deeply flawed. The hon. Lady must distinguish between the feelings she has about the workings of the system and the principle of having such a system in the first place.

Colin Pickthall: I want to add to what the hon. Member for Southport, my next-door neighbour, has said. The appeals panels make some potty decisions from time to time, and that is almost inevitable, but their one advantage is that they can see across an area the different thresholds for exclusion that schools have. I have seven large secondary schools in my constituency. They are all very good and I have no quarrels with any of them, but they have different tolerance thresholds for what they judge to be punishable by exclusion. It is not fair that a school with a good, cosy, middle-class intake can exclude a pupil for an action that a school a few miles away with a tough, rough intake would take in its stride without even considering exclusion. When those latter schools exclude, it is the absolute last resort, and they are seldom kicked back on appeal.

Angela Watkinson: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that one of my secondary schools, which is in a nice, cosy, leafy, middle-class area and is high-achieving, has a very good record of accepting excluded pupils from the less advantaged area where the least popular school in the constituency is situated? It does very well with them. Often, an excluded pupil does much better with a change of surroundings, circumstances and friends. That is sometimes the answer.

Colin Pickthall: That does not surprise me. What worried me about the hon. Lady’s remarks was that she said that head teachers in general would not make catastrophic errors. Some heads do. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) told me a story about a school he knows where the head excluded a child for throwing the hat of another child out the window. The governors upheld the exclusion, although it was later turned down on appeal. That is perhaps an extreme example, but such reasons for exclusion are nonsense. Some heads will exclude. The pressure on heads from their school community and governors is sometimes quite strong. Sometimes the activities that pupils get up to that are not pleasant but are judged worthy of exclusion would not warrant such action in my experience of schools.
The schools exclusion appeals system is a good safeguard against the nonsense perpetrated by a small minority of head teachers, but perhaps any head teacher, however good, is liable to make a mistake. I am married to a head teacher. However good they are,  they make mistakes. In conclusion, I agree with the hon. Member for Southport. He is absolutely right, and we would be foolish to agree to the new clause.

Derek Twigg: The hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made strong cases as to why we should oppose the new clause, but I would like to place the Government’s position on the record.
The subsections of the Education Act 2002 to which the new clause refers provide for the setting up of an independent appeals panel to hear appeals against the exclusion of pupils from schools and pupil referral units. The Government believe unconditionally that an orderly and safe environment is essential for effective learning to take place. The work to sort out the root causes of exclusions and improve standards of behaviour has been placed for the first time at the heart of our schools policy. Through our behaviour and attendance strategy we are helping schools to tackle the behaviour that gives rise to exclusion, and we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to backing head teachers’ authority when pupils’ behaviour warrants exclusion; heads can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. Our guidance states that we do not normally expect independent appeal panels to reinstate such pupils.
We believe that it is right, however, in a matter as serious as permanent exclusion from school, with all its implications, that parents should have a right of appeal to an independent body that is in a position to review the school’s decision impartially. In find it difficult to believe that, given their concern for parents’ interests, the Opposition do not seem to share that view. Independent appeal panels were originally known as appeal committees. They were introduced by the Conservative Government and came into operation in 1987.
We are committed to the idea that excluded pupils should get the most appropriate education to tackle patterns of poor behaviour, so that they can be effectively reintegrated into mainstream education. A range of provision is available for excluded pupils. The number of pupil referral units has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997 and the number of places in them has nearly doubled, from 7,500 to 13,000. Our recently published guidance will help to ensure that all alternative provision addresses pupils’ behaviour and attainment.
For most pupils, however, mainstream school provides the broadest and most inclusive educational setting, but the pupils in question will be admitted to a school only when they are ready to return. We do not expect all permanently excluded pupils to be reintegrated into a mainstream school. That does not happen now and it will not happen in the future. It will depend on the child in each case.
Appeal panels are a necessary safeguard for pupils and parents. They are needed in the interest of natural justice, and they comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Abolishing them would inevitably lead to a  sharp increase in legal action by parents against schools, and more cases about exclusion from school would be brought in the courts. That would mean more stress for teachers, governors and head teachers.
The majority of parents would not want that. A survey found last year that 60 per cent. of parents in England wanted to keep appeal panels. At present, there are about 1,000 exclusion appeals in each academic year, and parents seek judicial review of those in no more than a handful of cases. The risk of legal action being taken would increase significantly if appeal panels were abolished as parents would not have recourse to any other independent review of a school’s decision. That would be costly in time and money to everyone involved. The estimated cost would be in excess of £2,000 in legal fees per case—a cost that would fall on schools, parents and local authorities.
I know that concerns have been expressed about decisions by appeal panels to reinstate particular pupils, such as the case in 2002 of two pupils at the Glyn technology school in Surrey, who were permanently excluded for making death threats against a teacher, but who were subsequently reinstated by an appeal panel, and the more recent case of a pupil at a school in Hampshire, who was reinstated by a panel following exclusion for assaulting a member of staff. In both cases, teaching staff refused to teach those pupils, and places for them were found elsewhere.
Following the Glyn case, in January 2003, the composition of panels was changed to ensure that they would better reflect the realities of school life. Now a three-member panel comprises a serving or recently retired head teacher—or, in Wales, another education practitioner—a serving or recently serving governor and a lay member, who takes the chair. With a majority of panel members having experience of contemporary school life, there is less chance of odd or perverse decisions. Another change that was introduced in January 2003 was the option, in exceptional circumstances, for a panel to overturn an exclusion without reinstating the pupil.
Since 2003, panels have also been required, in deciding whether to reinstate a pupil, to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all the members of the school community, including pupils, teachers and support staff. The National Assembly for Wales has adopted the same approach in its guidance on the issue.
Our guidance, to which, by law, appeal panels must have regard, emphasises the need for all panel members to be fully trained, and updated whenever changes are made to the law and guidance. Since 2001, a training pack has been available for the training of panel members in England. That has been revised to reflect changes in exclusion legislation.
Independent appeal panels do not reinstate a large number of excluded pupils. In the academic year 2002–03, the last year for which we have figures, there were 990 appeals and 21.1 per cent. of them went in favour of the parents. In fact, only 149 pupils out of a  total of 9,290 pupils who were permanently excluded were reinstated that year. That is fewer than 2 per cent. We believe, however, that it is important that parents should continue to have that safeguard in a matter that could have such a devastating and far-reaching effect on their children’s education and well-being. I hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister referred to balancing the rights of the excluded pupil with those of the rest of the school. Such circumstances arise only when it has become impossible for a school to contain a disruptive pupil. The rights of the other pupils and, in some instances, the teachers—when there is violence against a pupil—must prevail.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, but I have great confidence in the good sense of experienced head teachers. It remains my view that schools should have autonomy over exclusions, which should not be overturned by appeals panels. However, under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13 - Pupil referral units: supply and publication of information

‘The Secretary of State or the Assembly may by regulations require a pupil referral unit maintained by local education authority to collect and publish data on—
(a)education, achievement and attainment;
(b)authorised absence;
(c)unauthorised absence;
(d)the proportion of children required to attend the unit on a full time basis; and
(e)any other information as may be prescribed.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The thinking behind the new clause is that, on the rare occasions when pupils are excluded from school, it is absolutely essential that they do not have part-time education; for the rest of the week they could be wandering around and getting into trouble. They need proper specialised full-time education.
The new clause would embrace whether there is sufficient capacity in pupil referral units to accommodate all the students who need them, would ensure that they receive a proper education while they are there, and would monitor their attendance—we know that it sometimes a little too casual, to put it mildly. It would ensure proper monitoring of how many children are referred and what progress they are making while they are in the units, so that progress can be made towards returning them to mainstream schools when that is appropriate.

John Pugh: We are into the à la carte element of the agenda now, and I begin to wish that I had thought of all sorts of cunning little new clauses to detain everybody for a while. Actually, the new clause is very good and has a lot of sense behind it. There is a danger  of looking at pupil referral units as sin-bins, where the children are thrown into the outer darkness and left to vegetate. Certainly, when they go to such units, there is often a sense of relief in the school: people are glad to see the back of them because they have been problematic. However, they will go on being problematic unless the PRU does the job and changes their behaviour, their level of attainment, or their general demeanour. That is essential.
If all that happens in the PRU is that a pupil goes on for a few more years in perhaps a more managed environment, but does not fundamentally achieve any more or change in any way, that pupil who has been thrown out of school as a problem will eventually go out into the world as a problem. Society picks up the tab for that. There is a lot of sense in a system in which the buck stops somewhere. If children are going to PRUs, we must rationally assess what good it is doing them, what progress they are making, and try to give the PRU a mission to be accomplished. I do not mean that patronisingly, but if they are subject to the same rigours as established, mainstream institutions, they will recognise that their job is every bit as, if not more important than, what happens in the mainstream.

Derek Twigg: It worth establishing at the beginning that about 60 per cent. of the young people in most PRUs are not there because of behavioural problems in school, but because they have been hospitalised or have health problems, or problems with teenage pregnancy and so on. It is worth pointing that out, because there are often misconceptions about what type of young people are in PRUs.
The new clause would enable the regulations to require PRUs to collect and publish data on levels of achievement, attainment and absence, numbers of full-time pupils and any other prescribed information. I hope to show that we do not need the regulations to obtain that information. Some of it is already published. The PRU census is published each year and already collects information on gender, ethnicity, free school meals, the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs and the number of pupils who are dual registered.
Some of the information is not published. There are several reasons why we do not publish information on educational achievement and attainment in PRUs. Many pupils passing through the PRUs never sit an exam. As the majority of pupils spend fewer than two terms in a PRU, any achievement and attainment data collected would not give a reliable picture of the educational standards in that PRU, but would merely present a snapshot at a particular moment.
One of the main ambitions behind the PRU is to re-engage the pupil in learning, with a view to their speedy reintegration into mainstream education. Although that often means a more flexible pattern of study and assessment, it does not mean a lower standard of care. Achievement and attainment data are recorded on a pupil’s individual learning plan, which goes with that pupil when he or she returns to the mainstream school. That allows the school to see how the pupil has  progressed while attending the PRU. The achievement of pupils who are dual registered is captured by their mainstream school.
All PRUs are different. A hospital PRU will be different from a PRU for teenage mothers, which will be different again from a PRU catering for merely excluded pupils. Some PRU pupils are part-time, while some are dual registered and continue to attend a mainstream school for part of their time. Pupils who are sick are required to attend school for only five hours a week. It would therefore be difficult and misleading to publish comparative data.
Sharing information about achievement and attainment would not necessarily be a useful form of accountability. Individual learning plans are focused on the specific needs of the child, not always their educational attainment. For example, a pupil with behavioural problems would probably have goals connected with their behaviour rather than their academic achievements. In that sense, it is important to realise that the goals of PRUs, their staff and their pupils are the not the same as those for mainstream schools.
On the collection and publication of data on authorised and unauthorised absence, PRUs are legally obliged to keep an admissions register and an attendance register. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said in his letter of December of last year, there is currently no requirement on PRUs to pass on such data. I undertook to correct that. We intend to contact local authorities in England before the end of the school year, in order to allow those data to be collected for the 2006–07 academic year.
The new clause proposes publishing information on
“the proportion of children required to attend the unit on a full time basis”.
In order for the PRUs to collect and publish data on authorised and unauthorised absences, they will have to know which pupils are full-time and which are part-time. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in the regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Angela Watkinson: I am encouraged by some of the Minister’s comments about the intention to collect absence data in future, and about the number of children attending full-time. Those two things are crucial to a child’s progress, and to ensuring that they are not truanting, but receiving a full-time education.
On recording attainment levels, I take the Minister’s point that students are often in PRUs for only a relatively short period, so it is difficult to map progress or to give a general indication of attainment. Each child is an individual. However, the service provided is quite different from that provided in a mainstream school and each child needs individual reporting and monitoring that take on board the circumstances that led to the child being placed in the PRU, and predictions of how long it might take to turn them round and send them back into a mainstream school. There ought to be some means of plotting their progress, although it may be completely different from the way that that is done in a mainstream school.

Derek Twigg: I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about pupil plans. The pupils in question often work with mentors, and their progress requires a high level of involvement with teachers and mentors. How would one measure a school such as the one that I went to in Fulham a couple of weeks ago? It took on several young people who were on the verge of being excluded from their mainstream school. To avoid exclusion, the school took them into the PRU and worked with them to get them back into their school. Measuring such work is difficult. Its prime aim is to sort out pupils’ behaviour and get them back into the mainstream, where most of them could be. The Government plan to introduce personalised learning plans, which will plot the individual’s progress.
The arguments are put in terms of numbers and the different reasons why young people are in PRUs. Some are there to prevent them from being excluded, some are there because of ill health or teenage pregnancy and some are there just to try to get their behaviour sorted out and get them back into a mainstream school so that when they leave they will be able to go into employment or further education, which many of them are able to do. It is very difficult to measure all those things in the way that the hon. Lady is asking.

Angela Watkinson: I think I understand from the Minister’s last comments that there will be some means of reporting on the progress of each student and liaising with the mainstream school from which they may have been excluded and to which they hope to return. I thank him for that reassurance and, on those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15 - Reducing administrative burdens on schools, etc.

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall exercise his functions so as to have regard to the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies, headteachers, teachers and other school staff of all maintained schools, special schools, pupil referral units and local education authorities in England.
(2)The Secretary of State shall each year lay before each House of Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution a report giving details of—
(a)the general level of administration within all types of maintained schools and local education authorities;
(b)the measures which he has taken and which he proposes to take to reduce administrative burdens; and
(c)an evaluation of the effectiveness of those measures.’. —[Angela Watkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Watkinson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about reducing the administrative burden on schools. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with that.

Colin Pickthall: Does the hon. Lady suspect that, if the new clause were included in the Bill and the Act, as it will eventually become, when the Secretary of State  comes each year to lay before Parliament his or her report, he or she will send a circular to all schools and ask them to report in detail on the administrative burdens that they face and how they would like to see them reduced?

Angela Watkinson: No, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not what I had in mind. I am sure that the Department knows very well how many directives it has sent out to land on head teachers desks every day of the school year. We must monitor that and the requirement to produce plans and reports. Such things emanate from the Department, and that is where they must be monitored.

Stephen Twigg: I can reassure the hon. Lady and the Committee that legislation is already in place on this matter. It renders the amendment unnecessary. Section 38 of the Education Act 2002 places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to
“the desirability of avoiding—
(i)the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or head teachers”.
I would like to say a little about what we are doing to implement that.
The Department has now stopped the batch, which is the automatic mailing of paper to schools, and has replaced it with an online ordering service. We have also established the implementation review unit—an independent panel of 12 experienced practitioners, most of whom are head teachers, who provide an external challenge to the Department on the impact that our work has on schools. We have found it vital that officials monitor the impact of their own policies and that we have outside input from people with experience of being on the end of those policies.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:
“we welcome the way the Implementation Review Unit is playing its part in holding the Department and its agencies to account”.
The debate today has been largely non-partisan, but let me make one partisan point: I was interested to read that the Conservative party proposes in the James review to abolish the implementation review unit. It is one thing to add amendments to legislation, but that does not make a great difference if the means are not in place to implement the good intentions behind them.
The implementation review unit has been responsible for a series of changes to reduce bureaucratic burdens, some of which are being made under the Bill. They include reducing the burden on Ofsted, better data management through the common basic data set and provisions to allow electronic checks for free school meals. Those are just three examples of practical changes to reduce the bureaucratic burden on schools that follow the 2002 Act, and they are a consequence of the implementation review unit.
In the light of those comments, I ask the hon. Lady to seek leave to withdraw the amendment and to reconsider that Conservative party policy.

Angela Watkinson: Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to rewrite Conservative policy, but I assure the Minister that when the provisions have been  accepted and are part of the legislation next year, we will see if his recommendations have borne fruit. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Stephen Twigg: I see on the papers before me that the proceedings were to be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 April, so even allowing for the Easter recess, my arithmetic, which may be wrong, tells me that we could have had 10 more sittings. Under your exemplary chairmanship today, however, Mr. Forth, we have succeeded in discharging the Bill in only two sittings.
I thank you, Mr. Forth, the Clerks, the police and the array of DFES officials who have had to be on their toes to keep up with the speed of scrutiny in Committee today. I also thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, who always brings great authority and experience to these discussions. Depending on decisions to be taken elsewhere, this may be his last opportunity to sit on a Committee and to scrutinise legislation, so I thank him for his contribution.
I also thank the Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Upminster, who had some early support that disappeared, and the hon. Member for Southport, who had some late reinforcement. We managed to keep up with the speed of proceedings very well. The hon. Lady in particular had to move a very large number of amendments.
I thank my fellow Ministers—there were three ministerial “Twiggs” presenting the Bill—and also my predecessor, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who did a great deal of work with officials,  head teachers and others to put the Bill together. I believe that the legislation will make a real difference to schools.
I thank you once again, Mr. Forth, for your able chairmanship, and I thank all Committee members for their participation today.

Angela Watkinson: May I add my thanks to you, Mr. Forth, for your speedy chairmanship of the Committee’s proceedings? I also thank everyone else who has participated in many and varied ways, although I felt a little like the lone ranger.

John Pugh: I started off this morning—that seems like only a few hours ago, which, in fact, it is—by saying what a pleasure it was to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth. I did not think that it would be such a brief pleasure.
I thank all hon. Members for keeping the debate as succinct as it needed to be. Just the same, we still have a markedly flawed piece of legislation. In these circumstances, it is usual to thank the officials for all their hard work, but I suspect that the officials, looking at what was ahead of them, would probably like to thank the Members for the succinctness of their contributions.

Eric Forth: May I express my appreciation for the extraordinary self-discipline of members of the Committee, which allowed it to appear to be chaired so effectively?
My main thanks are not only to the Officers of the House who look after us and to Hansard, but most of all to the Clerk, who has kept me very much in order and on my toes. He has kept the whole show on the road. We always owe the Clerks the greatest thanks, but I thank everyone involved and thus draw the proceedings to a conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at ten minutes past Five o’clock.